ISO country US

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the record is 'Public,' which weakly implies accessibility, but it does not disclose side effects, return values, authentication needs, or whether inputs like json are persisted or discarded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler and places the key subject first. It is concise, but it achieves conciseness by omitting essential behavioral and usage information, so it is not a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and a sibling set covering many URL and data utilities, this one-line description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine what the tool does, what it returns, or how to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are individually documented in the schema. However, the tool description adds no meaning connecting those parameters to the ISO 3166-1 record, leaving the overall request shape unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the subject ('Public ISO 3166-1 record for US') and is not a pure tautology, but it lacks an explicit action verb and does not explain how the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to that record. This leaves the tool's actual operation ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, preconditions, or exclusions, so an agent has no context for selecting this tool over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is useful context, and it states the return values. However, it doesn't say whether a live network request is performed, how invalid URLs are handled, or what response shape to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two short sentences with no filler. The main output is front-loaded, and the privacy note is meaningful extra information, not noise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It covers the URL case but completely ignores how json, zone, and host parameters should be used, and it doesn't address error behavior or output format, leaving a significant gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning for host, json, or zone, and doesn't clarify how they relate to the URL-focused purpose, so it stays at the baseline rather than adding value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation (Return host, scheme, and HTTP status) on a URL resource, so the core purpose is identifiable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, and it omits the json/zone params, but the stated behavior is clear enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to call this tool versus normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json, timezone, or compatibility. The description also doesn't explain whether host/json/zone are alternative inputs or output fields, so an agent must infer usage from schema descriptions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The privacy statement 'No identifiers are retained' adds one useful behavioral fact, but the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the classification output looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose is stated first and the privacy note is a meaningful addition. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how the parameters relate to the classification. It does neither — 'this request' is ambiguous and no return behavior is described. This is inadequate for a tool with four optional inputs and ten siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have schema descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ('Show') and a resource ('this request is classified'), but the classification scheme is never explained, making it hard to understand what the tool actually reports. It does not distinguish it from siblings like validate-json, normalize-url, or domain-shape.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the ten sibling tools. There is no mention of which inputs are relevant, what problem it solves, or any exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description bears the transparency burden. It describes the core transformation and a negative property (no WHOIS/ownership), but fails to disclose the output shape of 'labels', how the json, url, and zone parameters are handled, or what 'discarded after the check' means in the context of this tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, scannable sentence with no redundant wording, and the core action is front-loaded. The brevity does sacrifice useful context, but that is a completeness problem, not a conciseness problem.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine whether to pass host, url, both, or why json and zone are accepted; the return format is also entirely unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters already have individual definitions. The description adds no additional meaning about how url, host, json, or zone should be used together, but the schema covers the basic roles of each.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Split a hostname into labels') and explicitly scopes out WHOIS/ownership data, which helps differentiate it from domain-lookup tools. However, it doesn't explain how the url, json, and zone schema parameters relate to that purpose, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a non-ownership-oriented use case, but no sibling alternatives are named and no decision rule is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not state what the tool returns, how it handles inputs like url, host, json, or zone, or whether it is read-only. The description is too thin to make the tool's behavior predictable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the key phrase 'IANA timezone names,' so it is not verbose. However, it is underspecified for a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations; conciseness here comes at the cost of useful content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several siblings, yet the description gives almost no actionable context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters relate to each other, or how to invoke it correctly. This is inadequate for reliable agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that 'zone' relates to IANA timezone names, and it offers no clarification for url, host, or json.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('common IANA timezone names') and hints at the intended use ('for clock calls'), but it lacks a clear verb describing the action. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like timezone or utc-time beyond the implication that this supplies names rather than performing time conversion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for clock calls' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over timezone or utc-time, and no exclusions or alternative references. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that only group counts are returned, but does not mention network behavior, error handling, redirects, access restrictions, or what happens when robots.txt is absent or unreadable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because the extreme brevity leaves important invocation details unstated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It does not clarify which parameters matter for fetch a robots.txt, what 'group counts' means in practice, or what failure modes the agent should expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and largely unrelated to robots.txt: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json as 'JSON text to validate', and zone as 'IANA timezone name'. The tool description does not explain which parameters apply or how they map to fetching a robots.txt, leaving the agent unable to choose between url and host.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and clearly states the output scope ('return group counts only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone, which target different resources and operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusion conditions or prerequisites. The description implies the tool is for robots.txt inspection, but it never states when to prefer it over related tools such as domain-shape or compatibility.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it completely ignores the host, json, and zone parameters in the schema, making it unclear whether they are valid inputs, ignored, or serve a different purpose. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core output and key behavior are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It covers only the url parameter and says nothing about required inputs, error behavior, or the role of the extra schema fields, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description only adds meaning for the url parameter. It fails to explain why a 'normalize-url' tool accepts host, json, and zone, and the schema's own terse descriptions do not resolve this mismatch. An agent cannot reliably determine how to populate or interpret three of the four parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and concrete output fields (origin, host, path) for a URL, and adds a clear behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped. This is enough to convey the primary purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling url-citation tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as url-citation or json-validate. The intended use is implied by the description, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Short catalog' hints at an informational, read-only operation, but the description does not say what the tool returns, whether it makes network requests based on url/host, or whether it has side effects or limits. The json parameter mention of 'discarded after the check' in the schema adds context, but the description itself does not.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only one sentence and is compact, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the meaning of the tool name and contributes no operational information, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 optional parameters with no explained relationship to the stated purpose, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context. The description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning about how url, host, json, or zone relate to a status-code catalog, but per the rubric the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description essentially restates the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It names a subject but no action, and it fails to reconcile the subject with the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone), which appear unrelated to a status-code catalog. An agent cannot determine what invoking this tool accomplishes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, etc.). The description gives no conditions, no exclusions, and no alternatives, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over the others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic output (current time) but does not explain behavior for invalid timezone names, whether the other schema parameters are ignored, or what format or precision the time is returned in.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, making the brevity cost more than it saves.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, input expectations, and behavior. It does none of these, and the mismatched schema parameters are left unexplained, so the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema includes url, host, and json parameters that are unrelated to timezone semantics, and the description does not clarify whether they are relevant, ignored, or combined with zone. An agent can only guess that zone is the intended input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which is a specific and meaningful behavior. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable in intent from siblings like iana-zones and utc-time, though it does not explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description implies a use case but does not actually state when the tool should be selected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the output concept, not the format (ISO-8601 vs Unix epoch), whether the four schema parameters are relevant or ignored, or any behavioral constraints such as precision or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is extremely short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than carefully structured. It provides no verb, no lead-in, and no context about parameters or output format.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needed to at least state the return format and parameter expectations. Instead, it offers only the core idea and leaves the four-parameter schema completely unresolved relative to the tool name and siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain why a UTC-time tool accepts url, host, json, and zone inputs, leaving the invocation contract ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly communicates that the tool returns the present UTC time, so an agent understands the basic resource. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones, which prevents a top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the timezone or iana-zones siblings. The only implicit signal is 'UTC', but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an error on invalid JSON) or whether validation is syntactic only, leaving key behavior undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds the side-effect note efficiently, making it appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to support correct invocation. It does not say which parameter to supply, whether any others are needed, or what the agent should expect in the response, so the tool is incomplete for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, many parameter descriptions (url, host, zone) are clearly unrelated to JSON validation and come from other tool contexts, which is misleading. The description itself does not clarify that only the 'json' parameter is relevant or how 'body' maps to it, so it fails to compensate for the schema mismatch.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a clear resource (a JSON body). It is not a tautology and provides enough to understand the tool's core function, but 'body' is not explicitly linked to the 'json' parameter, leaving slight ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, so the agent receives no context for selecting it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.